3 ms·
I can't stop you from interpreting questions as arguments requiring substantiation. my intention was to respectfully elicit your viewpoint in a non accusatory f
by thin_carapace 14d ago
I can't stop you from interpreting questions as arguments requiring substantiation. my intention was to respectfully elicit your viewpoint in a non accusatory fashion, by asking you about it. people prefer being asked over being told; one who justifies commanding lifesavers instead of listening to them could maybe benefit from learning this, as I did. putting morality aside, you have behaved perfectly logically consistent, while making no clear impact upon the person you addressed. was your goal to be logically consistent, or to make an impact?
- elendilm 14d agoCalling out the bad faith was the impact. Logic was the weapon. Getting exposed was the result. Bad character should be called out. The door was left open for him to demonstrate good faith. He did not. It revealed his character and work ethic. He doesn't want to put in the work. If he really is a neurosurgeon, I wouldn't want him to do surgery on me. He doesn't want to put in the work for his own argument, how can you trust him to put in the work to save your life. Your framing of neurosurgeons as life savers is rejected. If so, then most ordinary folk are also life savers. Unless you speak of truck drivers, pilots, grocery shopkeepers and others the same way as life savers, you will get bluntly called out. Virtue signaling does you no good. I notice you can read things that aren't there. This second time, you saw "commanding" where no commanding existed. It keeps getting interesting.
- thin_carapace 14d agoplease keep responding to me calling out all my arguments in the fashions you've been doing so far, I'm really interested in hearing more of your writing style
- elendilm 14d agoGladly. I have all the time in the world :).